It's an impressive accomplishment, really:
managing to debase the concept of ethics in government while passing a measure
that reverses an unjust rule. But House Republicans were certainly equal
to the task, and they achieved this amazing feat on behalf of the one member
of Congress who beyond any rational doubt has shown himself to be ethically
unfit for national office, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

When it looked as if their standard bearer in Congress might be indicted
as part of the Texas fundraising scandal that has already claimed two
of DeLay's close associates, the Republican realized that the procedural
rule they had rammed through over a decade ago could rise up to bite the
party that spawned it. Thus they used their newly beefed up majority to
withdraw the rule, and return to "the good old days". Back in the '90s,
the GOP made Democrat leader Dan Rostenkowski step down from his powerful
post by passing a rule that House leaders had to surrender their positions
if they were under indictment, which "Rosty" was at the time. Even though
he eventually was found guilty and went to prison, this was a bad rule,
passed for political rather than ethical reasons. Indictments are only
accusations, after all, and even politicians, odd as it may sound, are
presumed innocent.

But that does not alter the fact that in some cases, and DeLay certainly
seems like he would be one of those, a party interested in maintaining
its reputation and integrity should ask a leader who is facing serious
charges to take a leave of absence from his job until his name is cleared.
The GOP argument that a blameless leader could be forced out because of
an indictment plotted by an unscrupulous prosecutor in league with the
opposing party has nothing to do with DeLay, who has been admonished three
times by a bi-partisan House Ethics Committee that has been otherwise
semi-comatose for years. Given his track record, it is hard to imagine
that a DeLay indictment wouldn't have some substance to it. The GOP move,
admirable in the abstract, has very little to do with principles of justice
and everything to with protecting DeLay from the fruits of his own dubious
political practices.

DeLay, remember, also tried to get the House to bar "lame duck" Congressmen
from filing ethics complaints after outgoing Texas Democrat Chris Bell
had the effrontery to call DeLay on some clear-cut violations. The inspiration
behind this move is that DeLay has enough muscle to make the life of any
representative who dares to call him on his "creative ethics" a living
hell, but that House members who are leaving can file complaints with
impunity. The withdrawal of the indictment rule is just more of the same.

And so we have a wonderful example of how what would normally be a sensible
and ethical action can be unethical and cynical when the motives behind
it are wrong. Still, the bleats of outrage from the Democrats get little
sympathy from this corner either. That party opposed the now-defunct rule
when it had its own crooked leadership, and there is the more recent example
of President Clinton's impeachment to consider. Here was an indictment
(for that is all that an impeachment is) from the House itself, and nobody
suggested, certainly no Democrats, that Mr. Clinton was obliged to resign
his leadership post before the Senate passed it judgement. That
eventuality would have only occurred in the event of a conviction, which
never came for Clinton, and may not for DeLay (who has, to date, not even
been indicted.)

The Ethics Scoreboard thinks that a conviction, rather than an indictment,
is the correct impetus for a forced leadership change in the House, although
any party would be wise to have a general policy of asking party leaders
facing hard time to step down voluntarily until legal mattes are resolved.
As for DeLay, his time will probably come. He has ethical blind spots
galore, and is only getting bolder with time. The more the Republicans
move to protect "The Hammer," the more damaging DeLay's inevitable fall
will be to the party.

As the old newspaper columnists used to say, "You read it here first!"